If historians really regard themselves as "artists" rather than social
scientists than I really pity that profession.  If you are doing no more than
telling stories than you are novelists not historians.  If on the hand you
tell a story that attempts to approximate as closely as possible realities of
the past (however imperfect they may be) than you are a scientist.  I do not
know why it is so terrible to be labeled a scientist.  I think a scientist is
a fairly honorable title.  There are bad scientists, but there are also bad
artists.  Historians who wish to be scientists lift up your heads-your
colleagues who glory  in their cleverness  that they are "simply telling
stories with no basis in objective reality" will soon find themselves
marginalized into non-existence.  In these economic times a discipline that
does not take it self seriously will not be taken seriously by others.